dennyc Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said: It is and the pressure is now on the Society board to produce and publish an alternative investment plan. Its not unreasonable for members to expect this by 1 July. An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset. The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need. To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club. And to safeguard the future of the Society. I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 11 Author Report Share Posted June 11 11 hours ago, steelboy said: What's worth remembering about the 49% figure is that some of the clubs shares are effectively 'lost' so it's not possible for the entire 51% of non Barmack shareholders to come together to vote against him. The matter of the smaller private shareholders is one that has been largely overlooked in the past day or so. They/we make up about 28% of the total shareholding. From memory, there is one "large" shareholder, whose name hasn't cropped up on these boards, with several "medium" sized ones. As you say shareholdings did become more concentrated as people died off. But, against that the more recent Society sale did increase the number of small shareholders. Other things being equal, existing small shareholders would have the right to increase their holding, under the Executive Board's favoured plan. As someone else rightly posted on social media, some small shareholders could sell/give some of their their shares to the Society, although the club directors would have the right to block any such transaction (rarely if ever exercised) if it was deemed to be not in the best interests of the club (or something like that; I don't know the exact wording). Just another thought to toss into the bubbling soup pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 There's still absolutely zero in there about what he intends to actually bring to the club. Edit - Just looked over at P&B and there are actually people thanking him for posting like he's some sort of superior being. Fucking hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, dennyc said: An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset. The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need. To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club. And to safeguard the future of the Society. I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to. The well society said months ago they were looking to come up with an alternative proposal. I don't think anyone has transferred this responsibility onto them. They made a statement a few months ago saying they would come up with an alternative proposal. If they don't feel that's within their remit all they need to do surely is say this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, wellgirl said: The well society said months ago they were looking to come up with an alternative proposal. I don't think anyone has transferred this responsibility onto them. They made a statement a few months ago saying they would come up with an alternative proposal. If they don't feel that's within their remit all they need to do surely is say this. They didn't say alternative proposal. They said a new business plan for the society. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 4 minutes ago, steelboy said: They didn't say alternative proposal. They said a new business plan for the society. Was this in an email to members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, dennyc said: An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset. The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need. To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club. And to safeguard the future of the Society. I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to. The WS are the majority shareholders, owners, controlling interest, etc so nothing major should happen at The club without them knowing about it and sanctioning it, ie additional investment proposals, so if the WS board in line with the memberships wishes don't fancy it then it should go no further. And the club board should be told go and try again However as the WS was never set up with any serious Intent in terms of getting professional people onboard. It's been left to the volunteers to deal with the club board who want out ASAP and clearly have no time for the WS. The WS has been nothing more than a piggy bank to the club since it was set up with members contributing significant sums of cash with no real benefits in return, it's fan ownership in name only. So as the current club board are desperate to get out , now maybe the time for the WS to step up, get their act together restructure and get some professional people in place to run the club going forward for real and effective fan ownership. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: It's interesting that McMahon all of a sudden made investment his priority post the October Society elections, when a significant number of the old guard were voted out. And the revised Society Board determined that the they should return to operating in the manner that was originally set. Before, firstly, Les H and then Jim McM decided the Society was really just a cash source to be raided whenever and for whatever purpose the Club Board dictated. That's our subscriptions we are talking about. Aided by a faction within the Society Board. And the Barrack proposal is just an extension of that sidelining of the Society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 An alternative plan to outside investment is how the BBC reported it in February. Anyway. It will be good to see what their plan is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 5 hours ago, David said: The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club. Which Barmack will get back when he cancels half the Well Society loan plus the £1.35m he is demanding they provide over the same period. The guy is effectively getting the club for nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wispy Flossy Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 well Societys initial statement in full Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 9 minutes ago, wellgirl said: An alternative plan to outside investment is how the BBC reported it in February. Anyway. It will be good to see what their plan is. The BBC are simply after clicks. Nothing more. They don't even get the players on our team's names right sometimes. The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that. It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society. As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club. It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 11 Author Report Share Posted June 11 20 minutes ago, dennyc said: An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset. The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need. To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club. And to safeguard the future of the Society. I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to. I quite get the different remits of the Club and Society; so no argument from me whatever on that front. I'm quite clear about that. However, until a few minutes ago, I would have said that despite that theoretical separation of roles, the Society was not following that in practice, as it was indeed working on an alternative investment proposal, rightly or wrongly. However Steelboy has now placed extremely serious doubt in my mind by saying that my understanding simply wasn't accurate and that the Society has never been doing that. Its only ever been working on a strategic plan for the Society. Big Wispy Flossy has just confirmed that. In short there is no emerging alternative to the current external investment plan, except the status quo. My thoughts align with Wellgirl and I suspect also with a significant proportion of our fanbase which would also seem to be confused as to what exactly the Society Board is working up. She rightly quotes the BBC "An alternative plan to outside investment is how the BBC reported it in February." So, there is some logical basis for our confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said: However Steelboy has now placed extremely serious doubt in my mind by saying that my understanding simply wasn't accurate and that the Society has never been doing that. Its only ever been working on a strategic plan for the Society. The Society's number one concern is making sure that they have the funds needed if things under fan ownership go pear-shaped as has been described in the worst-case scenario. Again, I've said it before, but the Society cannot actually create and implement a plan that would bring in outside investment. I'm sure there are certain legal hurdles that must be crossed by any entity that goes down the route of engaging with international investors and striking investment contracts and MOU's. That kind of thing has to come from the club itself, and the board, led by the CEO. What the Society can do is look at alternative ways to make the club more appealing to certain groups and individuals, and that is something I know for a fact they have been working on. But again, somewhere in all of this we need to be asking what the actual club itself has been doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 7 minutes ago, David said: The BBC are simply after clicks. Nothing more. They don't even get the players on our team's names right sometimes. The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that. It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society. As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club. It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around. The article on the BBC website looks very much as if it's been lifted directly from communication from the well society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 20 minutes ago, wellgirl said: The well society said months ago they were looking to come up with an alternative proposal. I don't think anyone has transferred this responsibility onto them. They made a statement a few months ago saying they would come up with an alternative proposal. If they don't feel that's within their remit all they need to do surely is say this. 17 minutes ago, steelboy said: They didn't say alternative proposal. They said a new business plan for the society. Yikes! I find myself agreeing (again) with Steelboy. I also think that because they want what is best for the Club and the Society they are trying to find solutions that are drawing them into areas beyond their remit. It is one thing managing the development and growth of the Society, but coming up with an investment plan for a football club is something else. Are we expecting too much of them? As majority share holders and owners, I wonder if they should just have sought Members views and, if the consensus was 'NO', advised the Board that the proposal had been rejected, providing the reasoning behind that decision. And then instructed the Club Board to seek an alternative. But, through good intentions, the monkey has now landed on the Society's back. Wellgirl, hope your day got better and you got your work completed on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 Yes, but there's a difference between "an alternative plan to outside investment" and them creating "an alternative plan to bring in outside investment" which is what I've seen a lot of people saying. The general view has been that if we don't want Barmack's deal, the Society need to find a way to match that deal elsewhere. The Society is and always will be (I hope!) focused on ways we can operate as a fan-owned club. And in all honesty, there's a ton that could be done to improve how we operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, dennyc said: Yikes! I find myself agreeing (again) with Steelboy. I also think that because they want what is best for the Club and the Society they are trying to find solutions that are drawing them into areas beyond their remit. It is one thing managing the development and growth of the Society, but coming up with an investment plan for a football club is something else. Are we expecting too much of them? As majority share holders and owners, I wonder if they should just have sought Members views and, if the consensus was 'NO', advised the Board that the proposal had been rejected, providing the reasoning behind that decision. And then instructed the Club Board to seek an alternative. But, through good intentions, the monkey has now landed on the Society's back. Wellgirl, hope your day got better and you got your work completed on time. Thanks. I got out of hospital this morning and I got my essay in last night. Appreciated. BTW I actually agree with you that the society might have felt under pressure to bring something else to the table after the outside investment proposal when other people at the club have much more responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 "The design of our offer was always to give fans 50%+. Because there were discussions with lots of parties, and the actual governance of the Club isn't the easiest to understand, we landed where we did -- but if the main concern was keeping TWS, specifically, at 50%+, I'm sure smart people (not me) could sit in a room and solve it. Intention matters here." You'd think smart people would have realised how big a concern this was always going to be and solved it before putting the proposal forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 Food for thought..... In what other world does the owner of a business have so little input in the decision making of that business? Maybe now that the power struggle is over the owners of the football club could now have more say in the running of it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mootherwell86 Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, David said: The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that. It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society. As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club. It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around. If more competence had been shown in the last 3 years by the Executive Board then I doubt this conversation would even been happening... Managerial sackings, making an absolute riot of the Hunter Stand refurb and some other very poor decision making at boardroom level has seen us regress on and off the pitch. We are in a position this summer where we can realistically earn somewhere between £3-4 million in transfer fees. That may well be transformational sum in our case. This should be spent overhauling our player trading model and further ensuring our academy pathway for years to come. I would start by appointing an experienced football person (probably as DoF) to oversee the entire football operation at the club. This would be a viable way to increase revenue without potentially jeopardising ourselves. Absolutely agree on your last line... it is time that the tail stopped wagging the dog. The Well Society board need to ensure that the Exec board is being held accountable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 1 minute ago, joewarkfanclub said: Food for thought..... In what other world does the owner of a business have so little input in the decision making of that business? Maybe now that the power struggle is over the owners of the football club could now have more say in the running of it? Exactly - could start with the majority shareholders appointing the board and demanding they have the most seats on the board to cover the fans wishes. Those who wish to stop being volunteers and be paid for those duties can step up to the board. Then as is pointed out those mentioned can make a difference being on the board. Directors are paid to take the company forward and make decisions. Majority shareholders are not. It would be a good place for the Well Society to start. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wispy Flossy Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 What would happen in the event of (and this could now conceivably happen) the investment was rejected by well society and the current exec board resign? where does that leave us? this is not a dig at those who would reject investment , as I would vote for this too given the detail presented. the could get very messy very quickly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 2 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said: Food for thought..... In what other world does the owner of a business have so little input in the decision making of that business? Maybe now that the power struggle is over the owners of the football club could now have more say in the running of it? And certainly, as owners, direct the Club Board rather than be dictated to by that Board. Perhaps some good can come out of this whole affair at the end of the day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 5 minutes ago, Big Wispy Flossy said: What would happen in the event of (and this could now conceivably happen) the investment was rejected by well society and the current exec board resign? where does that leave us? this is not a dig at those who would reject investment , as I would vote for this too given the detail presented. the could get very messy very quickly Who is actually on the board now? Just McMahon, Dickie and Feely? EDIT: Lindsay and Caldwell were recently added I see. I'm guessing that they also agreed that Barmack's proposal was worth backing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.